I-m not saying that they wouldn't use GLONASS bomb at all, just that they wouldn't convert all their existing bombs with JDAMSlike kit like the NATO has for the good reason you yourself have pointed i.e. if precision is more or less the same why made such an extensive and costly adaptation?

What do you mean convert?

Russian bombs have an explosive section with a tail structure that is added and in the case of guided bombs like the KAB-1,500 a guidance section in the nose but they are not modular.

You can't just fit a satellite guidance nose and tail control section to a standard FAB-500M62 bomb and make it a KAB-500.

Satellite bombs and Laser or IIR guided bombs and missiles are made that way... they don't come in bomb kits that are attached to bombs of various sizes.

the existing stock of dumb bombs is available to the Russian AF and future production make sense because they are cheap and effective with modern aircraft with SV-24 and related upgrades.

For convert I mean what NATO armies have done with almost their entire stock of unguided bombs (that with french exceptions are practically just the Mk80 series)in the last decade: they have put a Jdams kit on them, with more than 250000 such kits producted so far.Now, I don't know if they are enought to cover their entire stock,but they are surely much more of the weapons that they have dropped in the same time.

I'm probably lacking the ability of write in english correctly as you seems not to have understood that I'm making a comparison between what was the solution adopted by the NATO and a completely different (and absolutely brillant IMHO) method of achieving the same result used now by russian to increase the overall precision of their own stock.So while for the former they are the overall standard weapon (at the point that when they want to use another guidance system they often ADD it to them instead of just subsitute their kit with another) , for the latter these are just one of the many weapons, guided and unguided that they already use, with no one of them having such a prevalence in their arsenal.

Now, I'm from my part I have still not understood what exactly we are arguing about.

About russian not converting their existing stock with some kind of guidance system?Seems not as both of us are convicted that it will be just absurd, beside that simply impossible.

About russian using Sat bombs anyway, instead of using just SV-24 or other similar systems? Seems not as both agree that they use them just in those situations (like adverse weather condition) in which their use still offer some clear advantages over unguided bombs or other guidance systems that they also use.

In the case it was just about the snipers paragon, the only point I disagreed with you, or better wanted to specify better your post,was the point in whicht you said that a sniper with a targeting system like the SV-24 wouldn't be able to hit a moving target (that can also be correct, even if seems me difficult to believe they have not added a MTI to it) while with a guidance system it would.

Well, with a Sarh, IIR, Optical,MMW, Saclos and even Maclos it certainly would be able to, with a SAT one ABSOLUTELY NOT as these systems doesn't engage targets, just geografical positions.

Now i'll go to check further, but it seems me that we are talking specifically of this type of guidance system, not of one whatsoever.In every case I think is now better to move along with this and not get stck in a discussion like this when the discussion are moving further away.

Mindstorm wrote:In any instance not even the former would be capable to fully prevent СВП-24 from computing the relative position of the carrying aircraft in respect to the intended target for precision weapon delivery;

My vote. I think the Russian military should come up with a version of the SVP 24 for the Army so that unguided artillery shells can be easily converted to guided shells for a fraction of the price.

The Russian Army has the largest stockpile of unguided shells and a SVP 24 for the army will be of great use.

Me think similar systemsare already widely available.Also because for artillery systems is much more simple: they fire from fixed position, so removing the main variable from equation and their projectiles are hinerently more precise than aerial bombs.

Appreciate the insights. Unfortunately I cannot read Russian. I work for military contractors & I work with EW.

I am not sure if words in a picture can be translated. So,if you could shed some light(in English) on what those brochures have to say I will be glad to reply.

Well, I was going to go in depth about how SVP-24 is mainly contained within the aircraft and really has no need for GLONASS/GPS and how its all really inertial accelerometers and gyros and such.

But Mindstorm has explained it clearly enough. Main reason that I posted the brochure was that you could look at the pictures and see what I listed above, especially the new HUD and computers embedded around the aircraft.

My vote. I think the Russian military should come up with a version of the SVP 24 for the Army so that unguided artillery shells can be easily converted to guided shells for a fraction of the price.

The Russian Army has the largest stockpile of unguided shells and a SVP 24 for the army will be of great use.

They already have a new system.

They have a new electronic fuse that can be fitted to the nose of artillery rounds of 152mm calibre or larger that have guidance fins and GLONASS guidance that can be attached to a standard artillery shell.

Once fired the guidance fins steer the round to within 10m of the target day or night and in all weather...

For convert I mean what NATO armies have done with almost their entire stock of unguided bombs (that with french exceptions are practically just the Mk80 series)in the last decade: they have put a Jdams kit on them, with more than 250000 such kits producted so far.Now, I don't know if they are enought to cover their entire stock,but they are surely much more of the weapons that they have dropped in the same time.

That is the difference... JDAM is a Kit, designed to be fitted to dumb bombs. The Russian satellite and laser and TV guided bombs are custom designed bombs.

The Russians wont convert their existing dumb bombs into KABs... they will be using systems like SV-24 to use existing dumb bombs and rockets accurately and cheaply.

Now, I'm from my part I have still not understood what exactly we are arguing about.

The Russians have guidance kits like Ugroza for rockets, but AFAIK they have not applied them to existing dumb bombs. The west improves the accuracy of their old dumb bombs by adding guidance kits and making them more expensive but also more useful. The Russians have simply made their aircraft more able to accurately deliver dumb bombs so they don't require guidance kits.

About russian using Sat bombs anyway, instead of using just SV-24 or other similar systems?Seems not as both agree that they use them just in those situations (like adverse weather condition) in which their use still offer some clear advantages over unguided bombs or other guidance systems that they also use.

Their satellite bombs are custom designed satellite guided bombs... not dumb bombs using satellite guidance kits. I would suspect that when the weather is bad then the radar on the aircraft can be used to substitute the view from the HUD so certain targets could still be hit with dumb bombs.

In the case it was just about the snipers paragon, the only point I disagreed with you, or better wanted to specify better your post,was the point in whicht you said that a sniper with a targeting system like the SV-24 wouldn't be able to hit a moving target (that can also be correct, even if seems me difficult to believe they have not added a MTI to it) while with a guidance system it would.

You have to ask yourself why weapons designed to hit aircraft at 50km or more are guided, rather than unguided... or indeed why weapons designed to hit tanks at more than 1km or so are also guided. Unless you make the engagement time very very short even a slow moving target can evade any unguided weapon no matter how accurately aimed initially... Having guided munitions makes hitting moving targets possible.

Well, with a Sarh, IIR, Optical,MMW, Saclos and even Maclos it certainly would be able to, with a SAT one ABSOLUTELY NOT as these systems doesn't engage targets, just geografical positions.

Where did I say otherwise?

The SV-24 is a system that uses information from the launch platform like speed and altitude and the known characteristics of the weapons currently selected to estimate in real time where that munition will impact the ground if released right now. GPS or GLONASS is irrelevant... it doesn't plot or calculate coordinates and it does not find targets... it just generates an impact point in the HUD based on the free flight situation for the aircraft.

So instead of the bombsight acting like an autopilot flying the plane straight and level for a bombing run like WWII and the norden bomb sight, it allows the pilot to manouver the aircraft to position the bomb impact cursor over the target... when it is lined up he just pushes the release button and the weapon is released and he is free to select another weapon and another target or fly away... you don't need GPS or GLONASS or any sort of guided weapon for it to work.

Mindstorm wrote:I repeat one more time: the greater operational benefit offered by a system like СВП-24 ,outside the obvious economic one, is the capability to mostly circumvent enemy up-to-date ECM countermeasures (in particular advanced satellite uplink point jamming) that would transform, in a conflict between evoluted opponents

Mindstorm look, how on earth can ECM stop any other fighter aircraft equipped with any targeting system( meaning a targeting system other than SVP 24) from doing the same?

Basically what SVP-24 does is it allows more precise strikes with unguided munitions especially when the Su 24 is manoeuvred during the target approach phase.

RTN wrote:Mindstorm look, how on earth can ECM stop any other fighter aircraft equipped with any targeting system( meaning a targeting system other than SVP 24) from doing the same

In facts i do not talk of the effects of advanced ECM on aircraft targeting systems, but of potentially dramatic effects of ECM on the guidance and homing systems of delivered munitions

About "doing the same" i should add that, at today, do not exist a true foreign equivalent of СВП-24.To be even more clear : put an MK-83 on any foreign aircraft with any kind of targeting system and the mean deviation from target achieved will be several times worse than that achieved by an Su-24M equipped with СВП-24 with a FAB-500 .

Mindstorm wrote:i should add that, at today, do not exist a true foreign equivalent of СВП-24.To be even more clear : put an MK-83 on any foreign aircraft with any kind of targeting system and the mean deviation from target achieved will be several times worse than that achieved by an Su-24M equipped with СВП-24 with a FAB-500 .

Ok. I will bite. Can you please share some data that shows that SVP 24 is more accurate compared to Western analogues?

From what I have seen we have been very successful with LANTIRN, though I realize that you believe that SVP 24 does not have any Western equivalent. It would be nice see some figures.

RTN wrote:Ok. I will bite. Can you please share some data that shows that SVP 24 is more accurate compared to Western analogues

СВП-24 has shown ,in the acceptance tests, an accuracy (in western CEP corresponding figures from domestic index of maximum error) for ФАБ-500 class bombs of about 4-7 m from a delivery altitude of 5000-6000 m(a result actually significantly better than that achievable through the employment of any iteration of JDAM kit, even if only within low/medium altitude of delivery and in environmental "stable" conditions .

Following employment in far more challenging live conditions both in large scale exercises (such as Щит Союза-2011), Air Force staged competitions (such as Авиадартс series) and actual combat employment (today Syrian operations) Su-24M equipped with СВП-24 have shown a mean deviation figure not worse than 20 meters for 500 kg class uncorrected munitions from same altitude of delivery.

Those hard results, at today under the eyes of anyone through the highly successful use in the Syrian theatre - with the employment not only of basis free-fall bombs but also of very efficient special purpose munitions such as РБК-500 СПБЭ-Д and БЕТАБ-500 ШП - are highly competitive with what achieved ,from the same delivery altitude , by foreign Air Forces using combination of under fuselage targeting pods for target tracking/collimation, and JDAM correction kits for precision strike, not with free-fall bombs.

It would be very hard ,if not impossible, to develop a JDAM-like correction kit for a special munition like БЕТАБ-500 ШП, essential in achieving the efficient destruction of deeply buried terrorist's structures; a Su-24M with СВП-24 can demolish a reinforced deeply buried command structure or an underground tunnels net - which proved to be effectively impervious to western-type free-fall penetrating bombs- with merely a pair of БЕТАБ-500 ШП .

Obviously mean deviation from target of uncorrected bombs delivered with СВП-24 system begin to grow sharply at the increasing of altitude of delivery ,or at the decrease of precise data on the local environmental conditions ,in particular those of near surface layer, therefore in this department precision correction kit such as JDAM or true PGM retain a distinctive advantage.

Mindstorm wrote:Obviously mean deviation from target of uncorrected bombs delivered with СВП-24 system begin to grow sharply at the increasing of altitude of delivery ,or at the decrease of precise data on the local environmental conditions ,in particular those of near surface layer, therefore in this department precision correction kit such as JDAM or true PGM retain a distinctive advantage.

Mindstorm,you make some good points. However please note that here in the US we have corrected the deviation from target by virtue of rapidly and collaboratively deploying ordnance like JDAM.

Consider the Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) system. The PCAS program includes a number of technologies which allow weapons systems data and other information pertaining to situational awareness to be shared between ground troops, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs), and combat aircrew more quickly. A -10s attack aircrafts and a joint terminal attack controller (JTAC) on the ground sprung a number of GPS- and laser-guided weapons in a series of trial flights in several successful trials that we have had.

PCAS was developed so that it can operate equally well across a number of platforms, digital radios, sensors, and weapons. It is also transferrable between platforms. The two main components of the PCAS system are PCAS-Air, which entails smart launcher technology and a pilot table, and PCAS-Ground, which features the equipment used by the JTACs.

http://www.darpa.mil/program/persistent-close-air-support

Consequently the CEP of a 500kg dumb munition, delivered from an altitude of 5000m is now >2m.

RTN wrote:please note that here in the US we have corrected the deviation from target by virtue of rapidly and collaboratively deploying ordnance like JDAM.

I do not understand your point RTN.

The degree of deviation from target is not a function of PCAS systems, but exclusively of the ordnance used in the engagement.

RTN wrote:Consequently the CEP of a 500kg dumb munition, delivered from an altitude of 5000m is now >2m.

Sorry RTN, but where this idea come from ?

PCAS has nothing to do with the increase of the precision of "dumb" munitions, but merely with significantly shortening the time from target identification to its engagement by part CAS support aircraft.

In the tests of PCAS where always used PGM delivered from short range (very often with laser homing ones).This is a test of PCAS with the engagement completed, from 8,5 km from target, by a MV-22 with a third party designated laser guided AGM-117 Gryffin missile; the level of deviation from the laser aim point is about 2 m.

medo wrote:On the video Su-34 in Syria is equipped with TV guided bombs KAB-500Kr for night attacks. Anyone know, if those bombs have IIR homing head to operate at night or they have TV guided homing head and Su-34 have to use Platan complex with them?

The KAB-500Kr, KAB-500-OD, KAB-1500Kr corrected air bombs are fitted with TV/terrain-matching homing heads and various types of warheads. TV homers with target data processing correlation algorithm can "remember" target location and correct bomb's flight trajectory until the impact on the target, thus realizing the "fire and forget" principle.

Such homing heads can help defeat low-contrast and masked targets provided that terrain reference points and target coordinates related to them are available.

The KAB-500Kr, KAB-500-OD, KAB-1500Kr corrected air bombs make part of weapon systems of such front-line aircraft types as Su-27, Su-30, Su-34, Su24M, MIG-29 and others.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/518/519/

The KAB-500Kr is a 350kg free-fall penetration bomb fitted with a nose-mounted TV guidance system, and has associated control surfaces fitted to its rear end.

The bolt-on front end is a constant diameter tube-like container, with four fixed clipped triangular stabilising fins at the rear end where it is joined to the bomb, and with a glass hemispherical nose.

There is a strake running along the bottom of the bomb to the rear end command datalink antenna.

The add-on tail section has four large clipped triangular fins, with elevator type control surfaces.

Cyberspec wrote:The KAB-500Kr, KAB-500-OD, KAB-1500Kr corrected air bombs are fitted with TV/terrain-matching homing heads and various types of warheads. TV homers with target data processing correlation algorithm can "remember" target location and correct bomb's flight trajectory until the impact on the target, thus realizing the "fire and forget" principle.

Such homing heads can help defeat low-contrast and masked targets provided that terrain reference points and target coordinates related to them are available.

KAB 500 are being directed towards the target using SVP 24. So what is the need for terrain-matching homing heads?

SVP-24 is not a targeting pod, just a point of impact computing device: it is used for enhance the precision of unguided bombs up to numbers close to the ones using GPS as their terminal guidance system, like Jdams are.When an even greater precision (less than five meters) is necessary you would in both case still need other types of terminal guidance systems: SALH, IIR, MMW radars or as in the case of KAB-KR TV/terrain matching.In this case SVP/24 or GPS can still be useful as they serves as an intermediate course guiding system i.e. taking the guided bomb as so close possible to the target and so allowing optimal condition for the terminal guidance system chosen.KR homing heads use a more reliable scenario matching mode instead of just target contrast, something that can explain the preference russians accord to this type of homing head over the others, while westener use SALH above all others systems.

Regarding TV/terrain matching homing heads... what they mean is that the seeker can be aimed at a point in relation to other things on the ground.

For instance you have an open field with a large tree in its centre and a small bush about 50m to its left.

the target might be under camouflage netting that the TV sensor cannot detect or more specifically cannot differentiate from the grass.

Using terrain matching homing head rather than target the tree or the bush you can target a point between the bush and tree where a camouflage net is hiding trenches with enemy soldiers or an HQ.

Equally their might be some cars or a tractor but between them under heavy camouflage is a tank... the TV based seeker can be locked onto the actual target by using visible point targets as a reference point to the actual target/point of aim.

Emm....no. Russian satelite guided bombs at this moment use two band reciever Kompas PSN-2001 for both GPS and Glonass.

And to my knowledge Russia did not use any satelite guided bombs in 2008.

Yeah... my radio gets an enormous range of frequencies too.

GPS is a US system that is very restricted in its civilian version... it has serious altitude and speed limitations that makes it pretty much useless most of the time for weapons guidance... and that is for a reason.

In times of conflict such channels are normally turned off or scrambled so as to be worse than useless.

The receivers in Russian weapons might be dual band but they would be of no value to the design and use of the system.

It would be like a US bomber flying over Nazi Germany with a secure radio link to Lord Hawhaw.

And what does how many sat guide bombs the Russians had in 2008 got to do with how many cruise missiles they have stockpiles now?

Emm....no. Russian satelite guided bombs at this moment use two band reciever Kompas PSN-2001 for both GPS and Glonass.

And to my knowledge Russia did not use any satelite guided bombs in 2008.

Yeah... my radio gets an enormous range of frequencies too.

GPS is a US system that is very restricted in its civilian version... it has serious altitude and speed limitations that makes it pretty much useless most of the time for weapons guidance... and that is for a reason.

In times of conflict such channels are normally turned off or scrambled so as to be worse than useless.

The receivers in Russian weapons might be dual band but they would be of no value to the design and use of the system.

It would be like a US bomber flying over Nazi Germany with a secure radio link to Lord Hawhaw.

And what does how many sat guide bombs the Russians had in 2008 got to do with how many cruise missiles they have stockpiles now?

You said "such weapons would be useless as shown in the conflict in south ossetia when the US turned off civilian GPS signals in the region". Not sure why it would matter if Russians did not use any GPS guided bombs, and from what i am aware very few if any GPS navigation systems were at that time used by Russian forces. I did not mention their number at all.

Well, RuAF insists still on having dual band recievers, for domestic service, while i cant say for sure the reason i have few theories.

All i am saying that number of such weapons in Russian stockpile even today is very small. And they are significantly cheaper than any cruise missile.

Emm....no. Russian satelite guided bombs at this moment use two band reciever Kompas PSN-2001 for both GPS and Glonass.

And to my knowledge Russia did not use any satelite guided bombs in 2008.

Yeah... my radio gets an enormous range of frequencies too.

GPS is a US system that is very restricted in its civilian version... it has serious altitude and speed limitations that makes it pretty much useless most of the time for weapons guidance... and that is for a reason.

In times of conflict such channels are normally turned off or scrambled so as to be worse than useless.

The receivers in Russian weapons might be dual band but they would be of no value to the design and use of the system.

It would be like a US bomber flying over Nazi Germany with a secure radio link to Lord Hawhaw.

And what does how many sat guide bombs the Russians had in 2008 got to do with how many cruise missiles they have stockpiles now?

All i am saying that number of such weapons in Russian stockpile even today is very small. And they are significantly cheaper than any cruise missile.

...And using a Gefest-T upgrade with dumb iron bombs gets the same job done and its even cheaper...come at me bro!

You said "such weapons would be useless as shown in the conflict in south ossetia when the US turned off civilian GPS signals in the region". Not sure why it would matter if Russians did not use any GPS guided bombs, and from what i am aware very few if any GPS navigation systems were at that time used by Russian forces. I did not mention their number at all.

I used the conflict in South Ossetia to make the point that GPS signals are civilian only for a power like Russia and therefore worse than useless as the US CONTROLS THE SIGNALS.

There were plenty of Russian soldiers who used cell phones and also bought commercial civilian GPS hand helds to assist them during that conflict and they were rendered useless by US actions.

You said:

And laser/GPS guided bombs are even cheaper, yet how many are there stockpiled in Russia? 500?

To which I replied that GPS guided bombs would be of no value to Russia.

GPS or Navstar is a US system controlled by the US.

Russia would not benefit from stockpiling weapons using a form of guidance that relys on the US.

All i am saying that number of such weapons in Russian stockpile even today is very small. And they are significantly cheaper than any cruise missile.

Opinion... or can you provide an actual figure/list of weapons they have stockpiled...

Dumb bombs are cheaper still when delivered accurately with a Gefest & T upgraded aircraft.